2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-24-2010 

# K uldeep Kaul v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3075

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " K ulde ep K aul v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1282. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1282NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3075

___________ KU LDEEP KA UL, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 098 493 289 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay24, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM K ul deep K aul pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , w hi ch deni ed hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for r e v i e w.2 I . K aul i s a nat i ve of I ndi a and a ci t i zen of K eny a. K aul ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a v is ito r’ s v is a a n d w a s p la c e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s f o r s ta y in g lo n g e r t h a n p e rm itte d . H e appl i ed foras y l um and r el at ed r el i ef, cl ai m i ng thathe w as , and w oul d be, per s ecut ed i n K eny a bec aus e of hi s ethni ci ty . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , i n an or derdat ed O c t o b e r2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , d e n i e d a s yl u m a s t o K e n ya , d e n i e d w i th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l t o K e n ya and I ndi a, deni ed r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e as t o both countr i es , and or der ed K aul r emoved t o K eny a. T he B I A aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on on Sept ember8, 2 0 0 8 . K au r fil ed a m o ti o n to reo p en , d ated D ec em b er 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , an d rec eive d b ythe B IA o n D ec em b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . In a n af fid av itatt ac h ed to the m o ti o n , K au l st ated that “the re h a v e b e e n sig n if

ica n t ch a n g e s in K e n y a th a t ca u se m e to f e a r f o r th e sa f

e tyo f m yf a m ily an d m yself.” A . R . 9 . K au l no ted th at i n D ec em b er 2 0 0 7 an d ea rl yJan u ary2 0 0 8 , there had bee n r i ot s l eadi ng up t o t he el ect i ons . K aul r efe rr ed t o att ache d art i cl es “r egar di ng the att acks on K eny an I ndi ans . ” I d. K aul s t at ed thatthe “c urr entcl i m at e has al l ow ed In d ia n b u s in e s s e s to b e ta rg e te d a n d ri o tin g h a s o c c u rr e d o u ts id e o f In d ia n h o m e s .” Id . K aul s t at ed thathe w ou l d n ot be abl e t o survi ve eco no m i cal l yi n K eny a, and that “these ar e verydanger ous t i m es foran I ndi an i n K eny a and f ora K as hm i r i - born I ndi an i n I ndi a, a c o u n tr yto w h ic h I n o lo n g e r h a v e c itiz e n s h ip .” T he B I A not ed thatthe mot i on w as unt i m el y , butthatthe t i m e l i m i t at i ons do not3

appl yt o a mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on cha nged countrycondi t i ons . T he B I A found, how ever , thatthe cha nged countr ycondi t i ons exce pt i on w as i nappl i cabl e. T he B I A not ed th a td e s p i t e th e s u b m i s s i o n o f “ v a r i o u s a r t i c l e s d e s c r i b i n g th e r e c e n tu n r e s ti n K e n ya w h ich su rro u n d e d th e n a tio n a l ele c tio n s in e a rly2 0 0 8 ,” K a u l h a d “ f a iled to d e m o n stra te how s uch evi dence s et s for th a vi abl e as y l um cl ai m . ” A . R . 3. T he B I A al s o not ed that the I J had found no pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of K eny ans of I ndi an des cent . T he B IA f o u n d th a t K a u l “h a s n o t p re se n ted h is e v id e n c e o f c u rre n t co u n tryc o n d iti o n s w ith in th e c o n tex t o f

a n ysp e c if

ied w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n c laim th a t w o u ld re late to hi m , ” and not ed thatfea rof gene r al i zed e thni c s tr i fe w oul d notw arr antr eopeni ng. T he BI A th u s d e n i e d th e mo t i o n a s u n t i me l y . Ka u l f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. B eca us e K aul di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of the Sept ember8, 2008 deci s i on, w e mayonl yr evi ew the B oar d’ s J une 19, 2009 deci s i on. See N ocon v. I . N . S. , 789 F. 2d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 2 -3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (f in a l d e p o rta tio n o rd e rs a n d o rd e rs d e n y in g m o tio n s to re o p e n a re in d e p e n d e n tlyre v iew a b le; a tim e lyp e tit io n f o r re v iew m u st b e f

iled w ith r es pectt o t he s peci fi c or ders oughtt o be r evi ew ed) . W e r evi ew a dec i s i on deny i ng a m o ti o n to reo p en fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . L u v . A sh cro ft, 2 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3d C ir . 2001) . A m ot i on t o r eopen ge ner al l ym us tbe “f i l ed w i thi n 90 day s of entryof a f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve or derof r emoval . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i ) . K aul ’ s m ot i on w as fi l ed b e y o n d th e 9 0 d a y s . Ho we v e r , a s th e BI A n o t e d , th e r e i s a n e x c e p t i o n t o th e t i meI n hi s br i ef, K aul s t at es , w i thoutexpl anat i on, thatthe B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thathi s m ot i on 1 w a s u n tim e ly“ is n o t co rre c t.” P e tit io n e r’s B rie f a t 8 . H is m o tio n to re o p e n sta tes , ag a in w i thoutexpl anat i on, that“[t ] her e ar e no t i m e and numer i cal l i m i t at i ons on the mot i on. ” A . R . 8. A l tho ug h K aul never expressl yrefer ences t he “ch ang ed co un trycon dit i on s” exce pt i on t o a t i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen, w e w i l l as s um e, as appar ent l ydi d the B I A , thathe i s i nvoki ng thatexce pt i on. A n as y l um appl i cantcan s how thathe has an obj ect i ve w el l - founded f earof 2 per s ecut i on i n t he futur e byei thers how i ng thathe w oul d be i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outfor p e rse c u tio n o r b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t th e re is a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n o f

p e o p le s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i n hi s countr yof ci t i zens hi p. Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 2 2 5 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 4 r equi r ement s form ot i ons t o r eopen ba s ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n the co u n tryo f n ati o n ali tysinc e the p rev iou s h ea ri n g . 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ). 1 W e f in d th a t th e B IA d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n . T he I J had found thatK aul ’ s exper i ence s i n K eny a, i ncl udi ng bei ng ques t i oned by governm entoffi ci al s forei ghthour s on one occ as i on, and l os i ng contr act s aft erthe g o v e rn m e n t ch a n g e d , d id n o t co n stitu te p e rse c u tio n . K a u l d id n o t ex p lain w h yth e c iv il unr es tthatoccurr ed ar ound t he end of 2007 and begi nni ng of 2008 w oul d i ncr eas e the l i kel i hood thathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on i n K eny a. “M er e gene r al i zed 2 law les sn e ss a n d v io len c e b e tw e e n d iv e rse p o p u latio n s, o f th e so rt w h ich a b o u n d s in num er ous countr i es and i nfl i ct s m i s eryupon m i l l i ons of i nnocentpeopl e dai l yar ound t he w o rl d , g e n e ra lly is n o t s u f f ic ie n t to p e rm it th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l to g ra n t a s y lu m . . . .” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 494- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Si ngh v. I N S, 134 F. 3d 9 6 2 , 9 6 7 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )) . K aul ar gu es that the B IA shou l d h ave d i scerned his cl ai m that K eny a has a5

“ p a ttern o r p ra c tice ” o f

p e rse c u tio n o f

A sia n s b yre a d in g th e a ttac h m e n ts to h is m o tio n to reo p en . P eti ti o n er’s B ri ef at 13 -15 . K au l did n o t argu e in h is m o ti o n to reo p en that there w as s uch a pa t t ern orpr act i ce. H ow ever , beca us e the B I A di d comm enton the i s s ue, by r efe rr i ng t o t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatther e w as no patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of K eny ans of I ndi an des cent , s ee A . R . 3, w e have author i tyt o addr es s the cl ai m . L i n v. A tt’yG e n ., 5 4 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (w h e re B IA ra ise s c laim su a sp o n te, c laim is co n side red ex h au sted fo r pu rpo ses o f re v iew in co u rto f a p p ea ls) . W e f ind that the B IA di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o fi nd a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of A s i an K e n ya n s b a s e d o n r i o t i n g th a ta p p e a r s t o h a v e o c c u rr e d o v e ra tw o - m o n th p e r i o d n e a r l y a y earbefor e K aul fi l ed hi s m ot i on. A l though the mat er i al s not e thatm anyI ndi an- ow ned b u sin e ss e s w e re d e stro y e d d u rin g th e rio tin g , w e d o n o t se e a n yin d ica tio n in th e m a ter ials su b m itt e d w ith th e m o tio n to re o p e n th a t A sia n K e n y a n s w o u ld c o n tin u e to h a v e a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on on the bas i s of thei rr ace orethni ci ty . T he evi dence K aul su b m itted d o es n o t est ab li sh that an yp rob lem s ex p erien ce d b yA sian K en y an s are “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed, ” as w oul d be r equi r ed t o fi nd a patt ern orpr act i ce of p erse cu ti o n . L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.